Folks,
As I’ve been doing lately, I will be keeping this short. This blog post will serve as a springboard for actual conversation. More often than not, we – the authors – are usually opening up a discussion board to the readers of our blog rather than reporting on our own insights; however, I’ve noticed that – again, more often than not – discussions don’t really happen. That’s ok, I suppose; after all, I’m assuming the readership of this blog is composed mainly of English majors and literature aficionados – many of which are introverts. Today is different, though. If you are reading this, I implore you to comment on the question I will pose today.
I read two articles today about the role of the poet and the role of the reader in “witness poetry.” I’m not going to get into what the article had to say, but I am wondering what you all think about the role of the poet and the reader. I know most of you all have read Roland Barthes and the structuralists, (haha, that sounds like an 80s pop band) so I’m sure most of you are familiar with the whole death of the author thing. For the sake of this discussion, let’s assume that the author has a purpose aside from writing poetry. Let’s also assume that the reader is not the creator of the meaning behind the poetry. In short, let’s assume there is a sort of symbiosis between the poet and the receiver of the poetry.
So, what is the role of the poet? What is the role of the reader of poetry? What is the nature of the relationship between pet and reader? Does poetry in a historical context change the role of the poet and the receiver of poetry? I’m sure you all have thought about this to some extent, but if not, now’s the time. Please let me know what you think about these sorts of questions. Are they even worth asking? Who knows.
I’m looking forward to your responses.
J
